End of Life and Ethical Issues/Applying Ethical Theory Leanna Moore PHI 208 Ethics and Moral Reasoning Instructor Jean Suplizio March 12, 2016

Due to technology medicine have advanced over the years, this allows physicians to save people’s lives and helped increase the life expectancy of their patients. Unfortunately, there are some medical conditions and diseases that are incurable. And these medical conditions and diseases are unpredictable and may cause us to have to make some difficult decisions to want ease the patient from suffering. There are ethical issues surround anything that is done in the medical field, particularly concerning the treatment and voluntary euthanasia of a patient that is dying. There are strong controversy whether voluntary euthanasia and physician assisted suicide, of a patient that is dying, is morally right or wrong. Should it be up to the patient and their family to make the decision for end-of life care? The choice for end of life a mission for many individuals, “the nineteenth-century philosopher John Stuart Mill argued that individuals are, ultimately, the best judges and guardians of their own interests”, (Singer, 2005). In this essay, I will discuss the difference between euthanasia and physician assisted suicide, and the utilitarian ethical theory for this topic and how it results in the happiness for several people. After being diagnosed with a serious terminal illness, the body can begin to deteriorate causing physical pain and trauma before death. As the patient with serious illness gets closer to the end of life their symptoms and pain may intensify. Watching your loved one suffering can be unbearable for the patient’s family members. Having the option to end one’s life through physician assisted suicide or euthanasia may be merciful choice. Euthanasia or physician assisted suicide would reducing the terminally ill patient from their pain and suffering. The right to have patients choose between life and death would make a greater amount of good for the greatest number of people happy; this utilizes the utilitarian theory. The utilitarian is a term that “is more specifically applied to the greatest happiness for the greatest number” (Funk & Wagnalls, 2015). Over the years medical technology have become more advance allowing the decision to use life support to keep patients alive. There are times when extending the duration of life is prolonging the patient’s suffering and with no chance of recovery, the family can ask to remove the patient from life support. Even with the finest technology there are still some patients that cannot be cured and are labeled terminally ill. This is where the ethical argument comes, some people think it is the physician’s job to relieve the patients suffering by providing aid in dying and some people think that it is not ethically acceptable because the physicians take an oath to preserve life. With no immediate solution to this ethical argument the terminally ill and their family members fight for the right to end their suffering and die with dignity. The state of Oregon is the first state to pass the act Death With Dignity Act, “allowed Oregon residents who met certain criteria to request prescriptions for lethal medication from their physicians” (Pilver, 2015). Under the Act patients must meet certain criteria in order for it to be legal to allow physician assisted suicide to be practiced. Two of the most important criteria are having been diagnosed with a terminal illness that will lead to death and being capable of communicating the decision to withhold life sustaining treatment and request the lethal medication, “whether we are concerned to maximize liberty or to reduce suffering we should prefer that the time when death comes depends on the wishes of mentally competent patients” (Singer, 2005). There are some valid arguments against physician assisted suicide but a terminally ill patient should have a choice to self-administration of a lethal medication. A terminally ill patient is going to die, the patient, the physician nor can’t the patient’s family stop it. But the decision to end the terminally ill patient suffering should be made by the patient, family member and physician, “it is time for the medical directors and medical staffs at hospitals

to sit down and discuss whether physician assisted suicides are to be allowed in their institution and, if so, what safeguards, competency tests and waiting times will be put into place” (Asplund, 1996). The debate over physician assisted suicide will continue long into the future, but there must be a solution to ease the suffering of the terminally ill patients. I picked utilitarian theory for this essay because physician assisted suicide brings satisfaction and peace to the patient and would also relieve pain and suffering from the patient’s family. Physician assisted suicide will reduce the patient’s pain and concerns of the feeling of being an overwhelming burdensome on their family members.

References
Asplund, J. (1996). Facing the Inevitable. AHA News. (32) 13. Retrieve from http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.proxy-library.ashford.edu/eds/detail/detail?vid=4&sid=9c0a2179-050f-4307-95ea-19d3cc26df47%40sessionmgr114&hid=117&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#AN=9604163453&db=f5h
Funk & Wagnalls. (2015). Utilitarianism. Funk & Wagnalls New World Encyclopedia. World Book, Inc. 1p Retrieve from http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.proxy-library.ashford.edu/eds/detail/detail?sid=ac7a06f9-45f5-43ad-82fd-874a36e41ca6%40sessionmgr4004&vid=10&hid=4210&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#AN=UT020100&db=funk
Pilver, E. E. (2015). Oregon Voters Physician-Assisted Suicide. Salem Press Encyclopedia. Article. 2p. Retrieve from http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.proxy-library.ashford.edu/eds/detail/detail?sid=f30616ed-0e46-4ad0-83eb-7e0a66aee73d%40sessionmgr111&vid=10&hid=117&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#AN=89315669&db=ers
Singer, P. (2005). Decisions about Death. Utilitarian Philosophers. Article. Retrieve from http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/200508--.htm